Musical tastes a good determiner

guitarzero

I'm not sure if this was covered, had a look through and didnt see anything.
I'm wondering how much emphasis you put on peoples musical tastes as an indicator to their general personality and perhaps how well you'd get a long with them. Would you be discouraged if they loved a genre/band/singer that you despised? Even in a brief encounter on the topic of music, how much prejudice would you involve based on their tastes?

Kold

I find good taste in music an attractive factor but not as much as prettiness or general personality.

Kold, could you go out with a sound stunner who only listened to happy hardcore/chipmunk rave??

Android 666

I think if you're train of thought is 'I can't go out with her because she likes Kylie…'

You are either:

a) 15

or

b) a spa.

I like a lot of stuff my partner loathes and vice versa. I'd be more worried about our personalities clashing than our musical tastes tbh.

Rigsby

Kold wrote: »

I find good taste in music an attractive factor but not as much as prettiness or general personality.

What exactly is "good" musical taste With music, one's person's meat is an other person's poison. Who has the right to judge ? Personally, I could not give a damn about a person's taste in music, provided their general personality appealed to me, and we had something else in common. I suppose that answers the other question as regards musical tastes and personality being somehow related. I cant really see how it could be.

Kold

Rigsby wrote: »

What exactly is "good" musical taste With music, one's person's meat is an other person's poison. Who has the right to judge ? Personally, I could not give a damn about a person's taste in music, provided their general personality appealed to me, and we had something else in common. I suppose that answers the other question as regards musical tastes and personality being somehow related. I cant really see how it could be.

Good one.

smokedeels

My girlfriend hates Jazz and Hip-Hop, so it's annoying that we can't chill and listen to those genre's together, but we agree on most other styles of music.

I can't imagine going out with somebody and not sharing - at least some - musical taste as I'd always have something playing at home.

I'm not too fussy when it comes to friends, although since I hit my mid-20's I find I make new friends at gigs and through common interests more so than the older systems like location and mutual acquaintances, so it's often the case that it does matter (but in a more organic way)

pinksoir

Rigsby wrote: »

What exactly is "good" musical taste With music, one's person's meat is an other person's poison. Who has the right to judge ?

Eh? That's basically saying there's no such thing as bad art; nobody is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything.

I've recently done a (really good) course in fiction and personal essays. One of the most important things that I learned was that being a critic is a lot easier than creating art (duh). But more importantly that becoming a good critic is a very difficult and long process. Essentially there must be certain criteria that makes art 'good'. Once you understand what those criteria are, which you can achieve by attempting art yourself and, in the case of writing reading as widely as you can, then you are in a position to criticise the art of others well.

So basically, the person who has the right to judge is the person who has bothered their arse to educate themselves. The more varied your stockpile of music, the better you are at judging what makes 'good' music.

Great musicians are always massive music fans. It's pretty much essential. In order to be a good artist you must be a good critic. Being a good critic of music is not the sole reserve of musicians, obviously, but (believe it or not :rolleyes:) the vast majority of people aren't that interested in music to the same degree. Most people are satisfied to live in a small bubble of music, movies, art or whatever because there is no onus on them to expand their tastes.

Obviously again, there are tons of musicians that never expand their tastes either. And that is what makes them mediocre. That's what makes them lesser artists. Once an artists becomes satisfied with where they are they become irrelevent.

And that's where the taste of the listener comes in. If someone listens to a narrow spectrum of music, or their favourite artists are derivative and narrowly influenced, or the music they listen to is cynically marketed crap, then it's safe to say they have bad taste, I wouldn't trust their recommendations, and their opinion is irrelevent.

Whether it's a good determiner of someones personality as per OP? Nope. Their musical taste is a good determiner of their musical taste.

EDIT: That's obviously not the whole story either. Talent and originality comes into it. Was it Oscar Wilde said that "Mediocrity can never see past itself, but talent instantly recognises genius"? I think that the vast vast vast majority of music is incredibly mediocre, some is brilliant, and a tiny fraction could be considered genius. I don't know if there's been any genius in music in the recent past, if you defined genius as the creation of something so revolutionary that it results in a complete paradigm shift. Something like General Relativity but in music. Everything seems to be a slow accretion towards a point without any massive leaps. But I digress. For a whole post really...

Android 666

pinksoir wrote: »

Eh? That's basically saying there's no such thing as bad art; nobody is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything.

Eh, no - what he's basically saying is just because you think something is sh¡t doesn't necessarily mean other people will agree with you. While I agree that there is a growing culture of celebrating any art made by people no matter how asinine because it is an expression of their creativity I don't think that it is anything to do with what the poster was saying.

pinksoir wrote: »

I've recently done a (really good) course in fiction and personal essays. One of the most important things that I learned was that being a critic is a lot easier than creating art (duh). But more importantly that becoming a good critic is a very difficult and long process. Essentially there must be certain criteria that makes art 'good'. Once you understand what those criteria are, which you can achieve by attempting art yourself and, in the case of writing reading as widely as you can, then you are in a position to criticise the art of others well.

Your intention is to write and in doing so you more inclined to approach reading from a slightly different viewpoint of the average reader, studying more closely the nuts and bolts of how the story is put together. That doesn't mean that the more casual reader should be looked down upon for not applying the same critical criteria that you do - they have no need to.

pinksoir wrote: »

So basically, the person who has the right to judge is the person who has bothered their arse to educate themselves. The more varied your stockpile of music, the better you are at judging what makes 'good' music.

It depends on how varied your stockpile of music is. If you're listening to nothing but chin stroking jazz, I don't think you have the authority to comment on chart and vice versa. Also a lot of what you listen to, or read or watch, can be put down to personal conditioning. Someone might find techno hard work but over them from repeated listening come to enjoy it. Is that educating yourself or is it just perseverance?

pinksoir wrote: »

Great musicians are always massive music fans. It's pretty much essential. In order to be a good artist you must be a good critic. Being a good critic of music is not the sole reserve of musicians, obviously, but (believe it or not :rolleyes:) the vast majority of people aren't that interested in music to the same degree. Most people are satisfied to live in a small bubble of music, movies, art or whatever because there is no onus on them to expand their tastes.

I don't get what your trying to say here tbh. Some people don't like music as much as musicians? I would have thought was obvious enough.

In terms of people being satisfied to live in a small bubble of music, I can't really see a problem with that. People have different interests and some people don't care to listen to a load of sh¡t in the vain hope of finding a gem. Can't blame them sometimes.

pinksoir wrote: »

And that's where the taste of the listener comes in. If someone listens to a narrow spectrum of music, or their favourite artists are derivative and narrowly influenced, or the music they listen to is cynically marketed crap, then it's safe to say they have bad taste, I wouldn't trust their recommendations, and their opinion is irrelevent.

Their opinion is irrelevant to you and it's say to safe that their taste in music isn't the same as yours. I like a fairly broad spectrum of stuff that would be classed good and some that would be classed awful. I'm not always going to make my decisions of what I like on the basis of accepted critical criteria. It would be very boring if I did.

pinksoir wrote: »

Whether it's a good determiner of someones personality as per OP? Nope. Their musical taste is a good determiner of their musical taste.

Amen to that

pinksoir

Android 666 wrote: »

Eh, no - what he's basically saying is just because you think something is sh¡t doesn't necessarily mean other people will agree with you.

Yeah, maybe. But you can argue for why you don't like something, or for why you do. You can also argue for why you think something is good or bad independently of your tastes. Tastes change all the time and new tastes can be acquired. In art 'good' and 'bad' do exist independently of tastes.

Your intention is to write and in doing so you more inclined to approach reading from a slightly different viewpoint of the average reader, studying more closely the nuts and bolts of how the story is put together. That doesn't mean that the more casual reader should be looked down upon for not applying the same critical criteria that you do - they have no need to.

So the opinion of someone who has only ever read 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' bears as much weight as a literary acedemic? I have no interest in being a writer; I did the course to try to appreciate all the great works that have been written by people who are endlessly better than I could ever be. I am a casual reader. My opinion on literature is pretty much worthless. My taste has become a little wider and as a result a little better.

It depends on how varied your stockpile of music is. If you're listening to nothing but chin stroking jazz, I don't think you have the authority to comment on chart and vice versa. Also a lot of what you listen to, or read or watch, can be put down to personal conditioning.

If you're listening to nothing but chin stroking jazz then your taste isn't varied at all. Which I guess is your point. Some chart music has it's charms. Not all music has to be intellectually stimulating, just like not all movies have to be deep studies of the human condition. The point is that varied taste is good taste. It's the ability to appreciate what is good in a wide variety of music.

Someone might find techno hard work but over them from repeated listening come to enjoy it. Is that educating yourself or is it just perseverance?

Good music is good music, full stop. Some techno is good, some is mediocre, some is bad. It's senseless to talk about an entire genre.

I don't get what your trying to say here tbh. Some people don't like music as much as musicians? I would have thought was obvious enough.

Not really. As much as great musicians. Most musicians don't appreciate music as much as a lot of people. Most people are mediocre by definition, a tiny amount are brilliant, and once in a while we get geniuses.

In terms of people being satisfied to live in a small bubble of music, I can't really see a problem with that. People have different interests and some people don't care to listen to a load of sh¡t in the vain hope of finding a gem. Can't blame them sometimes.

I agree totally.

Their opinion is irrelevant to you and it's say to safe that their taste in music isn't the same as yours. I like a fairly broad spectrum of stuff that would be classed good and some that would be classed awful. I'm not always going to make my decisions of what I like on the basis of accepted critical criteria. It would be very boring if I did.

Every intelligent person has it in them to be a good critic. it's nothing to do with accepting criteria from outside yourself. Music is a fundamental human ability and we have an innate understanding of it that we can work towards. I like some awful crap as well, but I recognise that it's crap, as you do too. I wouldn't equate the lesser stuff I like with, for example Miles Davis or Alben Berg. Some music is challenging and some is easy. Simple can be good. But it's only by exposing yourself to the intellectually stimulating that you can fully appreciate how amazing music is. And I think music is fucking amazing and infinitely interesting. It's mathematics after all. And as nice as knowing that 2+2=4, there are far more interesting, elegant and important equations.

flyswatter

Well no, it doesn't make me dislike them as a person if I'm attracted to them and/or their personality.

But I've noticed that a large portion of a group of my friends don't play instruments and their music taste is less open minded as a result, just the regular chart stuff. There are one or two with an interest in DJing though and finding new music in general so yeah, I love discussing stuff with them.

I love talking with musicians in particular about this stuff, a lot of them are open minded about music.

Nailz

Not really, I'm not going to turn down a girl who has a good personality who might be pretty because I think she has a **** taste in music. I think a majority of people have a **** taste in music, do I think they're all hateful people upon that fact? No.

Although, I will say I am guilty of making negative first impressions about people because of their taste, if they listen to "what's on the radio", I initially think they're a properly boring person and do not deserve my presence.

Android 666

Nailz wrote: »

I initially think they're a properly boring person and do not deserve my presence.

Android 666

pinksoir wrote: »

Yeah, maybe. But you can argue for why you don't like something, or for why you do. You can also argue for why you think something is good or bad independently of your tastes. Tastes change all the time and new tastes can be acquired. In art 'good' and 'bad' do exist independently of tastes.

But your taste is going to be the determining factor in what you ultimately think is good or bad. You might have internal arguments along the lines 'I know this is probably good but I hate it' or 'I know this really poor but I can't help liking it.'

Also good and bad are not fixed points in relation to art and the critiquing of art is also a taste thing - look at the reception to the Impressionists or to the Rite of Spring by Stravinsky. This work is deemed brilliant now but the consensus at the time was that it was rubbish. Also work popular 100 years ago has fallen out of favour and though these work are considered good, the tastes of the modern audiences mean they will be doomed to obscurity for the time being.

pinksoir wrote: »

So the opinion of someone who has only ever read 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' bears as much weight as a literary acedemic? I have no interest in being a writer; I did the course to try to appreciate all the great works that have been written by people who are endlessly better than I could ever be. I am a casual reader. My opinion on literature is pretty much worthless. My taste has become a little wider and as a result a little better.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I was talking about the personal approach to reading books and not in terms of real critical analysis.

pinksoir wrote: »

If you're listening to nothing but chin stroking jazz then your taste isn't varied at all. Which I guess is your point. Some chart music has it's charms. Not all music has to be intellectually stimulating, just like not all movies have to be deep studies of the human condition. The point is that varied taste is good taste. It's the ability to appreciate what is good in a wide variety of music.

But you could be listening to a wide variety of sh¡t in my opinion. Just because you listen to a lot of music doesn't necessarily equate to good taste to the wider public. Again getting back to the point that one man's meat is another man's poison.

pinksoir wrote: »

Good music is good music, full stop. Some techno is good, some is mediocre, some is bad. It's senseless to talk about an entire genre.

Just using it as an example of the notion of acquiring taste or conditioning yourself to like something. I like a lot of techno myself, I hate even more of it as well. It was just a broad brushstroke to illustrate a point.

pinksoir wrote: »

Every intelligent person has it in them to be a good critic. it's nothing to do with accepting criteria from outside yourself. Music is a fundamental human ability and we have an innate understanding of it that we can work towards. I like some awful crap as well, but I recognise that it's crap, as you do too. I wouldn't equate the lesser stuff I like with, for example Miles Davis or Alben Berg. Some music is challenging and some is easy. Simple can be good. But it's only by exposing yourself to the intellectually stimulating that you can fully appreciate how amazing music is. And I think music is fucking amazing and infinitely interesting. It's mathematics after all. And as nice as knowing that 2+2=4, there are far more interesting, elegant and important equations.

Good points there.

pinksoir

Android 666 wrote: »

But your taste is going to be the determining factor in what you ultimately think is good or bad. You might have internal arguments along the lines 'I know this is probably good but I hate it' or 'I know this really poor but I can't help liking it.'

That's a fair enough point. What I'm arguing (probably redundantly) is that ideas of good or bad exist independently of taste. Take the National for example. Loads of people are crazy about them. I hate them. Are they good? I don't know. They're good musicians, yer man is maybe a good lyricist, the records are well produced. I just don't like them. I'd argue that they're yet another just-above-average band, neither good nor bad. I think culturally we've become so used to and comfortable with mediocrity that 'average' is now lauded as 'great'. We're more comfortable with clichés so what is genuinely interesting or even brilliant music is avoided or overlooked because it doesn't fit with our taste for the familiar. Which leads to your next point, which is a good point...

Also good and bad are not fixed points in relation to art and the critiquing of art is also a taste thing - look at the reception to the Impressionists or to the Rite of Spring by Stravinsky. This work is deemed brilliant now but the consensus at the time was that it was rubbish. Also work popular 100 years ago has fallen out of favour and though these work are considered good, the tastes of the modern audiences mean they will be doomed to obscurity for the time being.

I think what is good or bad develops with art. If art stayed the same then good and bad would be absolutes. But it doesn't. Impressionist art is brilliant because it absolutely challenged the conventions of the day. Which is why it was looked down upon. And likewise, if someone started painting in the Impressionist style today, would we think they were a great artist? We can look at art retrospectively and, most importantly, within context and appreciate it, but great art pushes boundaries. It's far more than technical ability and mere aesthetics.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I was talking about the personal approach to reading books and not in terms of real critical analysis.

Yeah, that was cheap. Sorry.

But you could be listening to a wide variety of sh¡t in my opinion. Just because you listen to a lot of music doesn't necessarily equate to good taste to the wider public. Again getting back to the point that one man's meat is another man's poison.

Could be. Probably are. Most art is shit (by which I mean average and barely interesting). I'd just argue that a varied taste in music is far more likely to incorporate good art than a narrow one. A varied diet is a good diet. Having good taste is being able to identify the truly great out of a mass of mediocrity. There's a Henry Miller quote that sums this up perfectly, which I'll dig out later.

EDIT: Here's that quote: "I believe that today more than ever a book should be sought after even if it has only one great page in it: we must search for fragments, splinters, toenails, anything that has ore in it, anything that is capable of resuscitating the body and soul"

Here's one from Walter Benjamin that sums up pretty much why good artists create art: "Writers are really people who write books not because they are poor, but because they are dissatisfied with the books which they could buy but do not like."

Bad artists are satisfied with what's out there already and instead of trying to create something new and unique are instead happy to merely add to the already swollen mass of mediocrity.

Rigsby

Very interesting and valid points have been made by both "pinksoir" and "Android 666".

However my attitude towards music is much more simplistic, involving less analysing. I'd lean more towards the Duke Ellington school of thought with his quote " there are only two types of music, good..and the other kind". "Pinksoir" (at least I think it was ) referred to "being educated" in music. Apart from a professional musician needing to know music theory etc, I dont understand this. From a listening aspect, if a piece of music or a song, no matter what it is, uplifts you and makes you feel good inside, you dont need an "education" (forget about what critics and other "musically educated" people say about this song/piece of music) to know that this is good music..to you. It does not (or should not) matter what others think. This was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post, when I said that no one has the right to judge. To each their own in all genres.

Android 666

Good article on creativity here

Setun

I'm surprised that some posters say that what type of music you listen to has no bearing on your personality - I'd assume the exact opposite! Of course it's not going to provide any detailed idea of a person's character, but certainly some insight no? The type of cloths we wear, the food we eat, books we read - they all communicate some idea of our personality to others.

As regards if I could go out with somebody who despised the type of music that I love, tbh I'm not so sure it would be a healthy relationship - I don't think she'd be able to put up with my incessant record playing for very long!

Kold

Rigsby wrote: »

However my attitude towards music is much more simplistic, involving less analysing. I'd lean more towards the Duke Ellington school of thought with his quote " there are only two types of music, good..and the other kind". "Pinksoir" (at least I think it was ) referred to "being educated" in music. Apart from a professional musician needing to know music theory etc, I dont understand this. From a listening aspect, if a piece of music or a song, no matter what it is, uplifts you and makes you feel good inside, you dont need an "education" (forget about what critics and other "musically educated" people say about this song/piece of music) to know that this is good music..to you. It does not (or should not) matter what others think. This was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post, when I said that no one has the right to judge. To each their own in all genres.

I suppose it's the difference between knowing a fine wine and drinking Budweiser. More power to the person who drinks Bud but like.... It's f*cking swill and I reserve the right to call it so.

pinksoir

Rigsby wrote: »

Very interesting and valid points have been made by both "pinksoir" and "Android 666".

However my attitude towards music is much more simplistic, involving less analysing. I'd lean more towards the Duke Ellington school of thought with his quote " there are only two types of music, good..and the other kind". "Pinksoir" (at least I think it was ) referred to "being educated" in music. Apart from a professional musician needing to know music theory etc, I dont understand this. From a listening aspect, if a piece of music or a song, no matter what it is, uplifts you and makes you feel good inside, you dont need an "education" (forget about what critics and other "musically educated" people say about this song/piece of music) to know that this is good music..to you. It does not (or should not) matter what others think. This was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post, when I said that no one has the right to judge. To each their own in all genres.

I suppose it comes down to how comfortable one is with being easily satisfied with art. People have every right to be lazy, but I think that intelligent people owe it to themselves to challenge themselves through some form of art. As I said, art is far more than aesthetics. It's such an amazing thing that to limit yourself to what sounds good, or what uplifts you, or whatever, is doing yourself a massive disservice. But that's your prerogative*. Beauty is too easy.

When I'm talking about educating yourself, I don't mean learning music theory. I'm talking about music appreciation. Educating yourself in the expansive and rich anthology of what we, as a species, have created and are creating, and discovering the best that we have to offer as a legacy.

* I'm not having a go by the way. I have pretty bad taste in films. I like movies. I know there is really amazing cinema out there, I watch some, but for the most part I'm far too lazy to bother with it.

Nailz

Android 666 wrote: »

Ugh... That went right over your head, it was a joke.

Android 666

Daddio wrote: »

I'm surprised that some posters say that what type of music you listen to has no bearing on your personality - I'd assume the exact opposite! Of course it's not going to provide any detailed idea of a person's character, but certainly some insight no? The type of cloths we wear, the food we eat, books we read - they all communicate some idea of our personality to others.

That's if you feel to need to use your clothes and your taste in music, films etc... Some do, some don't. The thing is if you buy into that you can end up looking like a walking cliche of your favoured subgroup (indie kid, hipster etc...)

Tbh, I'll hold my hands up here and I'm going to say I use those visual clues that people give you to pass judgement on them before they've even uttered a word (pyjama girls, liam gallagher clones...).

Daddio wrote: »

As regards if I could go out with somebody who despised the type of music that I love, tbh I'm not so sure it would be a healthy relationship - I don't think she'd be able to put up with my incessant record playing for very long!

With my partner, there's music I like that she'd have no interest in and I have two kids who would be quite vocal in their opposition to it so I keep confined to the car on the journey to work or when I go walking. It's never going to bother me unduly.

Android 666

Nailz wrote: »

Ugh... That went right over your head, it was a joke.

I figured you were joking but I got to say it was the perfect opportunity to put up that pic - which totally rocks...

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Not really. I couldn't bare listening to death metal or anything similar, though. Just does my nut in, as I'm sure what I listen to does other people's heads in. I'm tolerant of chart music, Rihanna, Katy Perry etc. I could listen to it without going mad or anything, but metal just grates me for some reason.

Nailz

baz2009 wrote: »

Not really. I couldn't bare listening to death metal or anything similar, though. Just does my nut in, as I'm sure what I listen to does other people's heads in. I'm tolerant of chart music, Rihanna, Katy Perry etc. I could listen to it without going mad or anything, but metal just grates me for some reason.

All Metal???

pinksoir

Android 666 wrote: »

Good article on creativity here

Ha! That's a brilliant article and I agree with it entirely. Strong Henry Miller-ish sentiment from it. Cheers for that.

Android 666

pinksoir wrote: »

Ha! That's a brilliant article and I agree with it entirely. Strong Henry Miller-ish sentiment from it. Cheers for that.

Yeah it's a good one alright. I always think of it when I see the artwork that hangs in the likes of the Bernard Shaw.

Probably going completely off the point...

pinksoir

Ha. I think that's precisely the point. Not of the OP though.

van der vart

i listen to and love all music (if its good ) i dont think you can say only metal or rock or punk or trad or whatever is the dogs, you must listen to, and i mean listen to ( not go da da da along with the song) and you will find something)
ME very simple + I am the highway - Audioslave

nyarlothothep

No, not really, although I think I could have a higher probability of getting along with someone into the same music as me if their taste was informed by the same cognitive processes which influence my own. The rationales for liking a style of music or band could originate from the same wellspring affecting other areas of behaviour and perception. It would be a weak correlation though.

Setun

Android 666 wrote: »

That's if you feel to need to use your clothes and your taste in music, films etc... Some do, some don't. The thing is if you buy into that you can end up looking like a walking cliche of your favoured subgroup (indie kid, hipster etc...)

Tbh, I'll hold my hands up here and I'm going to say I use those visual clues that people give you to pass judgement on them before they've even uttered a word (pyjama girls, liam gallagher clones...).

I don't define myself by my clothes or not necessarily by what music I listen to etc - but I recognise that they probably give away hints about what kind of person I am to an astute observer. I think my taste in music reflects my wider interests and hobbies, and by extension, my personality too. I've made friends with people initially based on common musical interests - although these friendships lasted longer due to the discovery that we had more in common than just music. Nevertheless, if somebody asked me who I am, I wouldn't reply with a list of my favourite albums. My musical tastes certainly wouldn't define me in my complex entirety, but I would say it provides clues about certain aspects of my personality.

Rigsby

Daddio wrote: »

I don't define myself by my clothes or not necessarily by what music I listen to etc - but I recognise that they probably give away hints about what kind of person I am to an astute observer.

I dont think it is possible to make general statements such as this. For instance, every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( and Mary ) from all walks of life and with different upbringing and backgrounds, wears jeans and a t-shirt these days. How is the astute observer supposed to know who is who, in this case ? Does this mean they all share the same or even some characteristics ? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, a person's musical taste develops at a young age, and can change as they get older, as can their personality, depending on what life throws at them. If what you say is true, then a jazz fan probably has "X" personality, a metal fan probably has "Y" personality etc. Again, maybe so or maybe not. Also, how does the astute observer categorise someone ( personality wise ) who listens to lots of genres ?

Kold

Rigsby wrote: »

I dont think it is possible to make general statements such as this. For instance, every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( and Mary ) from all walks of life and with different upbringing and backgrounds, wears jeans and a t-shirt these days. How is the astute observer supposed to know who is who, in this case ? Does this mean they all share the same or even some characteristics ? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, a person's musical taste develops at a young age, and can change as they get older, as can their personality, depending on what life throws at them. If what you say is true, then a jazz fan probably has "X" personality, a metal fan probably has "Y" personality etc. Again, maybe so or maybe not. Also, how does the astute observer categorise someone ( personality wise ) who listens to lots of genres ?

Jeans and Tshirts have subgenres within them. You're generalising too much here.

I myself am post loose fit fade core but I like to switch up the tshirts.

Rigsby

Kold wrote: »

Jeans and Tshirts have subgenres within them.

Would this not make it all the harder to determine someone's charicteristics from their clothes then ?

Setun

Rigsby wrote: »

I dont think it is possible to make general statements such as this. For instance, every Tom, Dick, and Harry ( and Mary ) from all walks of life and with different upbringing and backgrounds, wears jeans and a t-shirt these days. How is the astute observer supposed to know who is who, in this case ? Does this mean they all share the same or even some characteristics ? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, a person's musical taste develops at a young age, and can change as they get older, as can their personality, depending on what life throws at them. If what you say is true, then a jazz fan probably has "X" personality, a metal fan probably has "Y" personality etc. Again, maybe so or maybe not. Also, how does the astute observer categorise someone ( personality wise ) who listens to lots of genres ?

I don't think musical taste will enable you to accurately read somebody's entire personality, I think it might give you a rough idea of what they're like in certain respects though.

Our personality is defined largely by the addition of all our likes and dislikes - from the minor preferences to our more fundamental values, and music having some sort of significant subconscious and instinctual place in this, must have some sort of bearing on our personality, however slight.

Then again, perhaps it's more reflective of how we desire to be viewed by others? By wearing a tshirt with Lady Gaga on it, I am advertising a fact about myself that I am a fan of her music (I'm not, by the way :P), and undoubtedly anybody I meet will probably subconsciously submit that into their idea of what I'm like as a person. In this way, perhaps it could be argued that our taste in music is much less reflective of what we're like as a person than our reasons for liking this music?

Rigsby

Daddio wrote: »

Our personality is defined largely by the addition of all our likes and dislikes - from the minor preferences to our more fundamental values, and music having some sort of significant subconscious and instinctual place in this, must have some sort of bearing on our personality, however slight.

I agree. At the same time, as I mentioned earlier, our personalities are developed by our life experiences, quite apart from music.

flyswatter

I remember two of my bandmates used to be in a band with this guy who played guitar.

I don't think they really like him now.

The thing is, he was a musician, but had a close-minded approach to music, wanting to play the heavy rocky stuff like Guns n Roses and Metallica only.

Apparently my bandmates did reggae and jazz versions of songs by these artists to get on his nerves. He wasn't impressed. :pac:

Sinfonia

pinksoir wrote: »

Having good taste is being able to identify the truly great out of a mass of mediocrity.

The obvious counter-argument then is how one decides what is 'great' and what is 'mediocre', which brings the debates of subjective aesthetic preferences vs. historical (/sociological/philosophical) contextualisation, theoretical analysis of the construction of a piece etc.

To argue with someone on their aesthetic preference is useless. However, for someone to claim that a certain piece of music is 'bad', well then you need some parameters by which to make such a judgement, and it's difficult to incorporate aesthetics into that.
For example: Anybody I have played this piece to has outright despised it (and I must admit, bar a few moments, I'm not a huge fan myself), but the construction of the work on an analytical level is astounding (I often draw a comparison to architecture: You might see a building that is 'ugly' on the surface, but it's construction, how it is put together and how it stands up is beautifully intricate).

Anyway, on topic: I have friends with whom I don't share any musical taste, that's no problem, we've got other things in common; I have friends with whom I have almost identical tastes, no problem there either. The best thing, I find, is to meet someone with similar tastes and a reasonably strong overlap, but who can introduce you to music you've never heard before, and vice versa.
In terms of a partner, yeah, it would matter to me on some level, especially because I would often talk about music when getting to know someone, and the conversation would flow better if we could have a stimulating conversation about music (I don't mind if their tastes are different in this respect, but that they can argue for their side etc., in other words, if they said "I don't listen to much music, just whatever's in the charts, I don't think about it much", that would be a problem for me to some extent). But all of that would be judged on a case by case basis I suppose.. You could connect deeply with another person through anything..

In other words, I wouldn't judge somebody for their taste, but I would judge their taste based on how engaged/apathetic they were with music.

pinksoir

Sinfonia wrote: »

The obvious counter-argument then is how one decides what is 'great' and what is 'mediocre', which brings the debates of subjective aesthetic preferences vs. historical (/sociological/philosophical) contextualisation, theoretical analysis of the construction of a piece etc.

To argue with someone on their aesthetic preference is useless. However, for someone to claim that a certain piece of music is 'bad', well then you need some parameters by which to make such a judgement, and it's difficult to incorporate aesthetics into that.
For example: Anybody I have played this piece to has outright despised it (and I must admit, bar a few moments, I'm not a huge fan myself), but the construction of the work on an analytical level is astounding (I often draw a comparison to architecture: You might see a building that is 'ugly' on the surface, but it's construction, how it is put together and how it stands up is beautifully intricate).

Yeah. It doesn't make sense to talk about stuff in terms of 'great' or 'mediocre' unless those terms can be defined, but as I said, art can't be taken out of context and mediocre or average art is simply art that settles into the accepted standards. I'd argue that the vast majority of art is mediocre. It has to be by definition.

Aesthetics on its own is pretty much meaningless. Beauty is easy. Art should be challenging. Anything that's easy isn't worth doing, if you'll pardon the cliché.

The real problem is the insufficiency of language to explain what we're talking about when it comes to art. I mean, philosophy has attempted for millennia to try to account for what art is, what makes great art, and it's significance as a living, changing, progressing thing. And it isn't really any much closer.

The article that Android666 posted says at one point that art is the combination of "application of craft, dedicated practice, careful thought, hard work, and artfulness." I think artfulness is the one thing there that's hard to define.

I say beauty is easy, and what I mean is; anyone can write a song that moves you. A pretty melody is extremely simple. Emotion is easily influenced. There's certain tricks that can be employed to make people well up at the right point in films through the use of music etc etc. That's not artfulness, that's manipulation. That's taking the easy route and selling to an easy mark.

The problem is that while we're emotional creatures, we're also rational ones. So like you say, arguing with someone on their aesthetic preference is pointless. That piece you put up... Did I find it aesthetically 'pleasing'? Not really. I probably wouldn't listen to it in the bath. Was it interesting? Yes. Like you say, it's construction on an analytical level is astounding. Have you ever listened to Alban Berg? He's an early 20th C Austrian composer. Lot of atonal stuff going on. It's quite challenging to listen to. It's not 'beautiful' in a conventional sense (I think it sort of is, though. He's playing with our expectations...), but like the piece you linked it's wonderful on an analytical level.

I think that both of those pieces are too far the other way, though. I'd take the Nietzchean view that art should aim to be the balance between the aesthetic and the analytical. The emotional and the rational. That way it caters for both sides of our brain.

So maybe great art is when both of these criteria are fulfilled. And good taste is being balanced too.

Sinfonia

pinksoir wrote: »

I'd argue that the vast majority of art is mediocre. It has to be by definition.

Absolutely. In the case of music, often "aggressively mediocre"

The real problem is the insufficiency of language to explain what we're talking about when it comes to art. I mean, philosophy has attempted for millennia to try to account for what art is, what makes great art, and it's significance as a living, changing, progressing thing. And it isn't really any much closer.

Well, advances in musicology and criticism have been exponential, although I take your point.

Have you ever listened to Alban Berg?

Berg is fantastic, Wozzeck blew my mind..
Allow me to recommend Bartók and Messiaen to you (if you're not already familiar)

So maybe great art is when both of these criteria are fulfilled. And good taste is being balanced too.

Which is why Brahms is king! :P (...and Bach)

pinksoir

Sinfonia wrote: »

Berg is fantastic, Wozzeck blew my mind..
Allow me to recommend Bartók and Messiaen to you (if you're not already familiar)

I only got in to Berg recently. Bartók I do know. Messiaen not so much. To be honest, my taste in music leaves a lot to be desired. I'll check him out, cheers.

Which is why Brahms is king! :P (...and Bach)

Well, exactly! Striggio too. Seriously, if you haven't read about or heard this yet check it out... (there's a video in the article).

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Nailz wrote: »

All Metal???

Pretty much. I actually went through a Metal phase when I was younger, but nowadays I just can't stick it. Hurts my head.

Setun

Sinfonia wrote: »

For example: Anybody I have played this piece to has outright despised it (and I must admit, bar a few moments, I'm not a huge fan myself), but the construction of the work on an analytical level is astounding (I often draw a comparison to architecture: You might see a building that is 'ugly' on the surface, but it's construction, how it is put together and how it stands up is beautifully intricate).

This is a good point, especially with Nancarrow's player piano pieces: they're ingenuity and conceptual value surpass the actual musical content of the compositions for me. I still find them incredibly interesting though, but I wouldn't necessarily listen to them if I wasn't in the specific mood to.

Sinfonia wrote:

In other words, I wouldn't judge somebody for their taste, but I would judge their taste based on how engaged/apathetic they were with music.

I completely agree - I think it's important to be able to articulate or at least show some degree of passion about whatever it is you like to listen to. If I ask somebody to explain why they like an album, I probably would be a bit put off them if they replied with "because everybody is listening to it" or "because nobody else is listening to it".

Android 666

Daddio wrote: »

This is a good point, especially with Nancarrow's player piano pieces: they're ingenuity and conceptual value surpass the actual musical content of the compositions for me. I still find them incredibly interesting though, but I wouldn't necessarily listen to them if I wasn't in the specific mood to.

I have to agree with pinksoir, and by extension Nietzche, in that art should be a combination of the aesthetic and the analytical. I really couldn't find anything to applaud in a high concept piece that was lacking in any beauty. The pursuit of pure intellectualism in any art form is a dead end path imo.

Daddio wrote: »

I completely agree - I think it's important to be able to articulate or at least show some degree of passion about whatever it is you like to listen to. If I ask somebody to explain why they like an album, I probably would be a bit put off them if they replied with "because everybody is listening to it" or "because nobody else is listening to it".

In general conversation though, you're rarely going to be able to give a full blown critique of why you like an album but I've never heard anyone give either of those two reasons for listening to something whether they might have thought that or not. If you're getting to know somebody and you ask their opinion on a band or album you're never really going to get hugely in depth analysis

Probably again a bit off point but interesting article about music criticism in the internet age and blogging:

http://popdose.com/jesus-of-cool-dont-believe-dont-believe-the-hype-machine/

Some interesting points raised I thought.

Sinfonia

Android 666 wrote: »

I have to agree with pinksoir, and by extension Nietzche, in that art should be a combination of the aesthetic and the analytical. I really couldn't find anything to applaud in a high concept piece that was lacking in any beauty. The pursuit of pure intellectualism in any art form is a dead end path imo.

Surely if you feel that music should combine aesthetic beauty (which is subjective, remember than the aesthetic of Nancarrow's Player Piano Studies may be considered beautiful too) and "intelligent" composition (for want of a better term), then surely you can find something to applaud in a conceptual piece or an intelligently composed piece that is discordant/atonal/conventionally antithetical to "beauty". Would you say that you couldn't find anything to applaud in a piece that is "beautiful", but lacks in intelligence?
I agree that the most moving music is that which I find aesthetically beautiful and intelligently composed, I still enjoy music which is either/or.

In general conversation though, you're rarely going to be able to give a full blown critique of why you like an album but I've never heard anyone give either of those two reasons for listening to something whether they might have thought that or not. If you're getting to know somebody and you ask their opinion on a band or album you're never really going to get hugely in depth analysis

Not often, no. I'm a phd student in musicology though, so I do meet a lot of people who will give you nothing but in-depth analysis (which itself can get tiresome..!)
As a very basic example though, let's take Radiohead:
The people I know who are passionate about and enjoy talking in depth about music like Radiohead, the people I know who are not/don't, tend not to like them. So if somebody tells me they like Radiohead, but aren't going to get in-depth about it, I'll most likely give them the benefit of the doubt (that sounds really snobby, but it doesn't mean to be)

Probably again a bit off point but interesting article about music criticism in the internet age and blogging:

http://popdose.com/jesus-of-cool-dont-believe-dont-believe-the-hype-machine/

Some interesting points raised I thought.

For some reason that link didn't work for me

Android 666

Sinfonia wrote: »

Surely if you feel that music should combine aesthetic beauty (which is subjective, remember than the aesthetic of Nancarrow's Player Piano Studies may be considered beautiful too) and "intelligent" composition (for want of a better term), then surely you can find something to applaud in a conceptual piece or an intelligently composed piece that is discordant/atonal/conventionally antithetical to "beauty".

Indeed it is simplistic and restricting to use the word beauty. I'm taking a 5 min break in work here to answer. Maybe breathtaking might be a better adjective? If I find something that truly takes might breath away whether it's beautiful or unsettling I while truly enjoy it. I suppose the notion of composing as a purely abstract intellectual pursuit is what I find a turnoff.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Would you say that you couldn't find anything to applaud in a piece that is "beautiful", but lacks in intelligence?

Pretty much, yeah. There are plenty of bands out there making pleasant music out there that has nothing going for it in the smarts department which I can't really rate. I suppose it's more going back to the mediocre music argument talked about earlier. I suppose the better example might be soundtrack music. Somebody might create a score with lovely melodies and it works pleasantly with the film but if it's a paint by numbers job it's not going to have much appeal to you outside of the film.

I suppose the argument would be that to create something truly beautiful there needs to be an intellectual approach that will set it apart.

I agree that the most moving music is that which I find aesthetically beautiful and intelligently composed, I still enjoy music which is either/or.[/QUOTE]


Not often, no. I'm a phd student in musicology though, so I do meet a lot of people who will give you nothing but in-depth analysis (which itself can get tiresome..!)
As a very basic example though, let's take Radiohead:
The people I know who are passionate about and enjoy talking in depth about music like Radiohead, the people I know who are not/don't, tend not to like them. So if somebody tells me they like Radiohead, but aren't going to get in-depth about it, I'll most likely give them the benefit of the doubt (that sounds really snobby, but it doesn't mean to be) [/QUOTE]

And the innate slavish following of people to Radiohead is what put me off them for a long while. I've start listening to them again after this last album and really enjoying getting into them but there a band whose fans seem so mired in such lifeless and serious devotion to their music that it really threatens to smother the band at times - not Radiohead's fault I know. And the other thing is that there seemed to be this adolescent notion of using whether you were a fan of the band as indicator of person's intelligence which is daft and probably goes back to the original idea of the thread

kerash

if ronan keating is your idea of music i judge you harshly.

van der vart

guys, music is music.
since the early 70s ive listened to every new trend, have attended many concerts and always wore wrangler, so do my jeans say i shouldnt be listening to this music because its modern and anti wrangler.
i also listen in my boxers sometimes, must be something wrong there

Rigsby

van der vart wrote: »

guys, music is music.

This is the point I have being trying to get across in this thread.

guitarzero

Rigsby wrote: »

This is the point I have being trying to get across in this thread.

Its a game of 2 halves is a point i've been trying to make in another unrelated thread.

Bodhidharma

The first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was High Fidelity. To quote Rob Gordon "...what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films - these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the f****n' truth".